The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-10-07
CHUN LUNG.
The Holder of the OPIUM License
Fined SIOO for Selling a Poisonous
Drug.


On Saturday, July 10, 1887, Chun
Lung, the holder of the opium license,
was charged in the Police Court with
selling poisonous drug at Honolulu on
or about June Sd, to wit, opium, or a
preparation of opium, contrary to law.
The case was continued from time to
time until August 10Th, when the de-
fendant pleaded not guilty.
The first witness called was Loo Shing,
who stated he went to the opium house
on Hotel street where opium is sold at
Is cents for one mace. 1t was sold on
the lower floor. He bought opium,
which was produced in Court. 1t was
on June Sd, and defendants servant let
him have 81 worth An exhibit marked
B offered in evidence showed that J. L.
Kaulukou, Marshal, gave the witness
permission to use opium or it's prepare
ton. 1t was dated March s, 1887. An
other exhibit, marked G, reads as fol-
lows:
No. 81. HONOLULU, March 7, 1856.
hereby certify that All Chan, a resi-
dent of King street, requires opium for
the disease piles, from which he is SUI
fering. PANG MANG KONG,
Physician.
The witness Loo Shing stated that he
hurt his back at Ookala about two years
ago, and used opium for it ever since.
The defense admitted that the witness
bought opium of defendants employee
ON Hotel street for the purposes Of the
case above mentioned.
G. E. Smithies, clerk of the Interior
Department, produced book of licensed
Chinese physicians, and the name of
Pang Mang Kong appeared among them
His license was dated March 1, 1887.
@. T. Rodgers stated opium was con-
sidered a poisonous drug.
Lee Chung stated prepared opium was
made from crude.
The above evidence was submitted to
the Court for judgment September 18th,
briefs were filed, and His Honor gave
them careful consideration.
In giving judgment His Honor said
that counsel for the Crown contended
that Chinese physicians licensed under
chapter 10, section 2, of the Session
Laws of 1880, should not have the rights
of other licensed physicians, and asks
for conviction under chapter IS, sec
ton 4, Session Laws of $780, Counsel
for the defense contends that Chinese
physicians have the same rights as other
physicians, and His Honor is of the
opinion that section 3, chapter 10, SEES
sion laws of 1880, supports that theory,
which is also partially supported by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rex vs.
Young Tang. On reference to section 2,
chapter %, Laws of 1880, it states no
such licensee shall sell opium or prepa-
ration thereof, except on the prescription
of duly qualified physician. Now, was
this prescription for poisonous drug,
or such prescription as should be given
by a physician to procure poisonous
drugs? If it is not proper prescription
then person holding license should
not deliver the poisonous drug, and
His Honor is of the opinion it is not
prescription. During the trial the de-
PENDANT was spoken of as the holder of
the opium license. and permits were in
troduced tending that. AS there has not
been any justification under any license
to sell poisonous drugs, or opium, or
preparation of opium, introduced in this
case, His Honor said he had no difficulty
in finding the defendant guilty of vio-
lating chapter 25, section 4, of the Ses-
sion Laws of 1880, by selling poisonous
drug without license or proper pre-
scription, and sentenced him to pay
fine of $780,
Defendants counsel noted an appeal.